From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waxler v. Tillerson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 24, 2017
Case No. CV16-09375-JAK (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

Summary

explaining that "[t]he Court need not address the substance" of plaintiff's claim that the denial of her visa "violated the precedent of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the guidelines set forth in the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual," because "the Court cannot consider alleged procedural failings under the facially legitimate and bona fide reason standard set forth in Din"

Summary of this case from Al Khader v. Pompeo

Opinion

Case No. CV16-09375-JAK (GJSx)

08-24-2017

KACEY JANEEN WAXLER, Plaintiff, v. REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Defendant.


JUDGMENT

In light of the August 11, 2017, Order (Dkt. 29) that granted the motion to dismiss this action, the Court hereby ORDERS that judgment be entered in favor of DEFENDANT REX TILLERSON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2017

/s/_________

JOHN A. KRONSTADT

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Waxler v. Tillerson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 24, 2017
Case No. CV16-09375-JAK (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

explaining that "[t]he Court need not address the substance" of plaintiff's claim that the denial of her visa "violated the precedent of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the guidelines set forth in the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual," because "the Court cannot consider alleged procedural failings under the facially legitimate and bona fide reason standard set forth in Din"

Summary of this case from Al Khader v. Pompeo
Case details for

Waxler v. Tillerson

Case Details

Full title:KACEY JANEEN WAXLER, Plaintiff, v. REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 24, 2017

Citations

Case No. CV16-09375-JAK (GJSx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

Citing Cases

Al Khader v. Pompeo

Further, the FAM is not even a "relevant provision[] of law"; it is an agency manual. See Christensen v.…